Part 1 book “The cell language theory – Connecting mind and matter” has contents: Introduction, key terms and concepts, the bhopalator, cell language, matrix mathematics of genetics, biosemiotics.
P758_9781848166608_tp.indd 16/10/17 4:10 PM b2530 International Strategic Relations and China’s National Security: World at the Crossroads This page intentionally left blank b2530_FM.indd 01-Sep-16 11:03:06 AM P758_9781848166608_tp.indd 16/10/17 4:10 PM Published by World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE Head office: Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224 USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Ji, Sungchul, author Title: The cell language theory : connecting mind and matter / by Sungchul Ji (Rutgers University, USA) Description: Hackensack, New Jersey : World Scientific, 2017 Identifiers: LCCN 2017002353 | ISBN 9781848166608 (hc : alk paper) Subjects: LCSH: Gene expression | Cell interaction | Genetics | Cytology Classification: LCC QH450 J5 2017 | DDC 572.8/65 dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017002353 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd All rights reserved This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher Desk Editors: Ram Mohan/Jennifer Brough/Shi Ying Koe Typeset by Stallion Press Email: enquiries@stallionpress.com Printed in Singapore Ram Mohan - P758 - The Cell Language Theory.indd 07-11-17 4:09:36 PM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter David E Green (1910–1983) Ilya R Prigogine (1917–2003) Rajendra K Mishra (1924–2009) Jaehyun Lee (on her 63rd birthday) b2861_FM.indd 17-10-2017 11:34:58 AM b2530 International Strategic Relations and China’s National Security: World at the Crossroads This page intentionally left blank b2530_FM.indd 01-Sep-16 11:03:06 AM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Preface There may be a useful analogy that can be drawn between biology and cosmology Just as we can recognize five distinct stages of development in the history of cosmology as indicated in Table P1, so perhaps the history of biology, i.e., the history of the development of our knowledge of life, may also be divided into at least five major stages One such possibility is suggested in the right-hand column of Table P1, mainly based on my own limited research results obtained over the last four-and-a-half decades Anyone attempting to write (or read) a book on the living cell, the basic unit of life, may well to remember that there are about hundred thousand million (1011) stars in the Milky Way Galaxy and an equally numerous number of galaxies in the Universe, whereas we can only see a few thousand individual stars with our naked eyes on a clear night [472] If we can compare the discovery in 1953 of the DNA double helix by Watson and Crick to the earth-centered view of Aristotle’s Universe of the 4th century BC, the cell-centered biology ushered in by the theoretical models of the living cell such as the Bhopalator [15–17] formulated in 1985 may be akin to the sun-centered Universe of Copernicus of the mid-16th century By the early 20th century, astronomy underwent three more “revolutions”: (i) our sun is only one of about 1012 stars in the Milky Way Galaxy, (ii) the Milky Way Galaxy is only one of about 1012 vii b2861_FM.indd 17-10-2017 11:34:58 AM b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter “6x9” viii Preface Table P1 A comparison between cosmology and biology [471–473] Cosmology (External Universe) Biology (Internal Universe) Earth-centered Universe with ~103 stars DNA-centered biology (Watson and (Aristotle, 4th century BC; Ptolemy, c 100 AD) Crick, 1953) Sun-centered Universe with ~103 stars (Copernicus, 1543) Cell-centered biology (the Bhopalator, 1985) Sun at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy with ~1011–1012 stars (Jacobus Kapteyn, early 20th century) Human-centered biology (the Piscatawaytor, 1991) Sun at the periphery of the Milky Way Galaxy with ~1011–1012 stars (Curtis Shapely, 1917) Biosphere-centered biology (?) (the Princetonator, 1991) The Universe contains 1011–1012 galaxies with ~1022–1024 stars (Hubble, 1929) Mind/consciousness-centered biology (?) (the Shillongator, 1991) Galaxies and galaxy clusters (left panel) and galaxy clusters (right panel) Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_cluster Retrieved from https://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Cytoskeleton galaxies in the Universe, and (iii) the discovery in 1929 by Hubble (1889–1953) that our Universe is not static as assumed by Newton and Einstein but rapidly expanding Although there is no theoretical reason why these three breakthroughs in astronomy should have any counterparts in biology, they motivated me to look for three comparable breakthroughs in biology beyond the living cell which I tentatively identify with (i) the human-centered biology (embodied in the Piscatawaytor proposed in 1991; see Section 3.2.20), (ii) the earth-centered biology (embodied in the Princetonator model of the origin of life proposed in 1991; see Section 4.9), and (iii) the cosmos or mind-centered biology b2861_FM.indd 17-10-2017 11:35:00 AM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Preface ix (embodied in the Shillongator proposed in 1991 and further elaborated on in Section 10.18) It is interesting to point out that, when I started to construct Table P1, I had only the first two rows clearly in mind Then when I extended the left-hand column by three more stages based on the history of cosmology, I was forced to come up with a comparable extension in biology as shown in the right-hand column, with the unexpected result of the three more ators emerging therein The term “X-ator” refers to the theoretical model of the system of physicochemical processes that organizes itself driven by its own internal free energy and controls information in such a way as to perform some function (see Section 2.6), where X is the name of the city where the major research on the mechanism of the self-organizing processes under consideration is carried out Another unexpected feature of Table P1 is that its right-hand column lists the main topics discussed in this book in varying degrees of detail, although the cell-centered biology is the focus of this book as indicated by its main title, the Cell Language Theory It is hoped that this book will contribute to advancing our knowledge on the phenomenon of life as manifested in living cells, our internal Universe, just as the astronomical research over the last centuries and millennia has been advancing our knowledge about the external Universe (see row in Table P1) We are made out of matter Our body contains 25 elements out of about 100 elements found in the Universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Composition_of_the_human_body) We now know that when these elements are organized properly in space and time to constitute our body (which is a system of living cells), they exhibit the property called mind We also know that, at the moment when our body dies, our mind disappears even though little or no matter is lost immediately after death from our body This simple thought experience reveals that matter is necessary but not sufficient for mind, leading to the conclusion that the necessary and sufficient condition for the phenomenon of mind must include not only the material, but also non-material factors (NMFs) I tentatively identify NMFs with “relations” or “edges” in a network diagram whose “nodes” are material objects There are at least three theoretically possible relations among matter, body, and mind, as briefly explained in the legend to Table P2 b2861_FM.indd 17-10-2017 11:35:00 AM b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter “6x9” 274 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter (see Table 6.6), all of the 10 c-signs in Table 6.7 can be represented with simply as Si,j,k with the sub-indexes obeying the following rule: i ≤ j ≤ k(6.9) where the symbol “≤” reads “less than or equal to” or “not greater than” The rules given in Eqs (6.8) and (6.9), which are equivalent, will be referred to as the “Peircean selection rule” (PSR) 6.6.3 Derivation of the 10 Classes of Signs from Nine Types of Signs Based on the Analogy between e-Signs and Quarks in Elementary Particle Physics To the best of my knowledge, Peirce did not provide any clear justification as to why three (and not some other numbers) of e-signs constitute a c-sign This gap may be filled by the postulated “isomorphism” between quarks and e-signs as explained in Table 6.8 If the “isomorphism” between the elementary particles and Peircean signs is real as claimed in Table 6.8, we can make the following predictions: (1) Just as baryons form atoms in interaction with electrons, so may c-signs form higher-order signs in interaction with the electron analogs of semiotics, which may well turn out to be the sign processor, leading to a tetrahedron (the usual triangle with an extra node above it) as a geometric representation This sign tetrahedron (in contrast to the traditional sign triad) may be called the “atomic signs” (2) Atoms form molecules through covalent (or strong) bonds Similarly, “atomic signs” may form “molecular signs” through “strong bonds” (3) Just as molecules form molecular complexes (e.g., enzyme–substrate complexes) through weak non-covalent bonds, so “molecular signs” may interact through weak bonds to form “sign complexes” The “semions” proposed by R R Gudwin [293] may be viewed as an example of “sign complexes” defined here (4) Inside the living cell, molecular complexes interact selectively, forming dynamic networks of molecular complexes Likewise, “sign b2861_Ch-06.indd 274 17-10-2017 12:04:14 PM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Biosemiotics 275 Table 6.8 The family resemblance (to be called the “isomorphism” loosely) between elementary particles and Peirce’s sign types Parameters Particle Physics Semiotics Elementary units quarks (u, d, c, s, t, b) leptons e-signs (or sign types): (S1,1), (S1,2), (S1,3), (S2,1), (S2,2), (S2,3), (S3,1), (S3,2), (S3,3) (see Table 6.6) Compound units ~60 baryons 10 classes of c-signs (or embodied signs) (see Table 6.7) Syntactic rules quarks in a baryon e-signs in a c-sign Order parameters Mass (5–5000 MeV) Electric charge (+2/3, –1/3) Color charge (r, g, b) (1) The epistemic categories of e-signs are denoted by their first subindexes 1, 2, and (2) The ontological categories of e-signs are denoted by their second subindexes 1, 2, and Semantic constraints quarks in a baryon must color white (1) The epistemic categories of the e-signs constituting a c-sign must increase from right to left (“the right-to-left parity”) (2) The ontological categories of the e-signs constituting a c-sign must obey the “PSR” given in (6.8) or (6.9) above complexes” may interact selectively in space and time to form dynamic “sign networks” realizing or executing some complex tasks, similar to the “semionic networks” of Gudwin [293] As already alluded to in Table 6.7, the triadic structure of Peircean composite signs can be denoted as Sijk, where S indicates “sign”, and the subscripts i, j, and k indicate, respectively, interpretant, object, and representamen Representamen is often replaced by (or used synonymously with) “sign” so that the term “sign” has dual meanings — “elementary sign” and “composite sign”, which can cause confusions unless due care is exercised Semioticians not distinguishing between these two types of signs may be akin to physicists conflating quarks and baryons b2861_Ch-06.indd 275 17-10-2017 12:04:14 PM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter 276 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Since each of the three subscripts can assume any one of the three possible numerical values — i as one of the three values in the third row in Figure 6.6, j as one of the three values in the second row, and k as one of the three values in the first row — there can be in principle × × = 27 possible composite signs However, Pierce chose only 10 out of these possibilities apparently based on what is referred to as the PSR, (6.9), given above Inequality (6.9) can be viewed as an example of “rule-governed creativity (RGC)”, a well-established principle in linguistics RGC may be alternatively called the “rule-governed freedom” (RGF) to avoid giving any impression of anthropocentrism RGF is also exhibited by quarks, since the three quarks in a baryon can change their colors “freely”, from red to blue to green, as long as the sum of their colors remain white (“rule-governedness”) 6.6.4 Derivation of “Nilsign” and Its Associated Category Called “Zeroness” Based on the Quark Model of the Peircean Sign According to Sheriff [98], Legisign is “a sign which would lose the character which renders it a sign if there were no interpretant”. (6.10) Sinsign is “a sign which would, at once, lose the character which makes it a sign if its object were removed, but would not lose that character if there were no interpretant”. (6.11) Qualisign “can only be an icon”. (6.12) It is based on Statement (6.11) that I regard sinsign as “interpretantless sign”, meaning that it can be a sign without its interpretant We can represent this idea algebraically thus: i =0 Si , j , k → S j , k = Sinsign (6.13) Process (6.13) can be read as A sinsign is the sign that results when there is no interpretant, i.e., when i = 0. (6.14) b2861_Ch-06.indd 276 17-10-2017 12:04:14 PM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Biosemiotics 277 It is based on Statement (6.14) that I regard qualisign as “object-less sign”, meaning that it can be a sign without its object We can represent this idea algebraically as j =0 Si , j , k → Sk = Qualisign (6.15) Since i ≤ j according to the PSR, (6.9), when j = 0, i must also be zero and hence both sub-indexes i and j drop out, leaving behind the sub-index k only Process (6.15) can be read as A qualisign is the sign that results when there is no object, i.e., when j = 0. (6.16) Since there are “interpretant-less sign”, (6.13), and “object-less sign”, (6.15), I am assuming that there can be “representamen-less sign” based on the principle of synechism [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synechism] and I propose “nilsign” or “sign-less” as the name of the “representamenless sign”: k =0 Si , j , k → S = “Nilsign” or “Sign - less” (6.17) Process (6.17) can be read as A nilsign is the sign that results when there is no representamen, i.e., when k = 0. (6.18) And the new category to which “nilsign” belongs, I elected to call “Zeroness”, leading to Table 6.9 Table 6.9 Zeroness as the new category invoked to accommodate “nilsign” predicted to exist by the quark model of the Peircean sign Category Zeroness Firstness Secondness Characteristics Transcendentality Ineffability Quality Potentiality Fact Actuality Habit Laws Sign Nilsign Qualisign Sinsign Legisign b2861_Ch-06.indd 277 Thirdness 17-10-2017 12:04:14 PM b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter “6x9” 278 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter In September 2016, S Brier brought to my attention the following paragraph from one of his papers [489], wherein Peirce describes the concept of Pure Zero which seems almost identical with that of Zeroness developed here: “If we are to proceed in a logical and scientific manner, we must, in order to account for the whole universe, suppose an initial condition in which the whole universe was non-existent, and therefore a state of absolute nothing… We start, then, with nothing, pure zero But this is not the nothing of negation For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym of the ordinal numeral second As such it implies a first; while the present pure zero is prior to even first The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything But this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born There is no individual thing, no compulsion outward nor inward, no law It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility — boundless possibility There is no compulsion and no law It is boundless freedom.” (highlight is mine) (6.19) As evident, Peirce already thought about what I call Zeroness in his concept of Pure Zero, but he apparently did not consider the sign associated with his Pure Zero comparable to my “signless” or “nilsign” (Table 6.9) that can be logically associated with Zeroness based on the quark model of the Peircean sign It would be an interesting challenge for interested semioticians to find out whether or not Peirce discussed ideas similar to “nilsign” or “signless” in his extensive writings in connection with his concept of Pure Zero 6.6.5 The Neo-Semiotics and the Possible Meaning of Zeroness The version of the Peircean semiotics that is extended to encompass Zeroness and its associated nilsign as described in Section 6.6.4 will be referred to as the neo-semiotics for convenience The Zeroness embodied in the neo-semiotics appears to belong to the Z World in the model of the universe depicted in Figure 6.5 This figure was updated on September 24, 2016, by adding the Zero as a part b2861_Ch-06.indd 278 17-10-2017 12:04:14 PM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Biosemiotics 279 Zero Figure 6.5 The Seoulator The model of the cosmos and the ultimate reality that is based on the principles of complementarity and self-organization and includes Spirituality as an intrinsic aspect of reality [278, p 209] The Shillongator shown in Figure 10.16 can be viewed as a physical model of the universe in contrast to the Seoulator which is a metaphysical model This figure, first published in 1995 [24], was updated by adding the symbol “Zero” in the Z World in September 2016, in order to make it compatible with Table 6.9 of the Invisible World to reflect the Zeroness discussed in Section 6.6.4, the Pure Zero of C S Peirce [490], the Zero of P Rowlands who derived fundamental equations in physics based on the mathematics of zero [404], and the Zero of L Krauss who marshaled recent astrophysical evidence that the Universe arose from zero [491] When I chose the letter Z in 1995 [24] to represent the Invisible World, I did not anticipate that, two decades later, in 2016, it would be assigned the role of representing so many different kinds of Zeros in natural and human sciences, all of which may be viewed as the tokens of the type, Z In 1898 [372], Peirce discussed the notion of “simple concepts applicable to every subject” that would be needed to construct “… a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to come, the entire work of human reason, in psychology, in physical science, in history, in sociology, and b2861_Ch-06.indd 279 17-10-2017 12:04:15 PM b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter “6x9” 280 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter in whatever other department there may be, shall appear as the filling up of its details The first step toward this is to find simple concepts applicable to every subject.” (emphasis added) (6.20) Such concepts will be referred to as the “Peirce’s simple concepts applicable to every subject” or “P-SCATES” One of the key concepts belonging to P-SCATES, I believe, is the irreducible triadic relation (ITR) discussed in Chapter ITR can be diagrammatically represented as a 4-node network as shown in panel f in Figure 9.3 The four nodes are labeled A, B, C, and ABC, with the first three nodes radiating out from the center occupied by ABC, the complementary union of A, B, and C It was during the writing of this section that the author realized the possible connection (or isomorphism) between Figure 6.5 formulated in 1995 [278] and ITR first articulated in 2015 [33], the connection that took the author over two decades to recognize The isomorphism between ITR and the Seoulator is not obvious but can be discerned by noting that the elements of ITR are embedded in Figure 6.5, as can be seen by the 4-node structure of row (representing Figure 6.5) and row (representing panel f in Figure 9.3) in Tables 6.10 and 6.11 Rows 10 and 11, i.e., Peircean semiotics and neo-semiotics, also fit the 4-node structure, but rows 3, 5, 6, and appear to fit the 4-node structure only partially, although they too can be made to fit the 4-node structure completely, if we can assign “ultimate reality” as their fourth node It is interesting to note that rows and 11 are almost identical, since Peirce’s concept of “Pure Zero” is almost synonymous with what I call “Zeroness” (Section 6.6.4), the only difference is that, where as “Pure Zero” was the product of pure thought, “Zeroness” was derived logically from the definition of the triadic sign given by Peirce himself by extending the numerical ranges of the sub-indexes of the Peircean sign, Si,j,k, from (1, 2, 3) to (0, 1, 2, 3), i.e., by introducing Zero into the Peircean semiotics, as explained by Processes 6.13, 6.15, and 6.17 In other words, it may be said that Peirce introduced Zero into semiotics primarily by an intuitive insight, whereas I was led to introduce Zero into semiotics based on an algebraic reasoning b2861_Ch-06.indd 280 17-10-2017 12:04:15 PM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Biosemiotics 281 Table 6.10 The “periodic table of philosophy” (PTP) that classifies human knowledge and experiences based on the principles of ITR (Chapter 9), self-organization (Section 2.6), and Yin–Yang complementarity (Section 2.4) Ontology V World Epistemology A (1) 1. Lao-tze B (2) Z World Ultimate Reality C (3) ABC (4) Yin Yang Taijia Dao (or Tao)b c 2. Vedanta Matter Brain Mind Brahman (?) 3. Aristotle Matter Form Hylomorph ? 4. Christianity Father Son (Jesus) Holy Spirit God 5. Islam [492] ? ? ? Allah 6. Spinoza Extension Thought Substance ? Body Mind Flesh ? 8. Seoulator (Figure 6.5) Matter Mind Spirit Ultimate reality 9. Peircean metaphysics [94–99] Secondness Thirdness Pure Zero [489] 7. Merleau-Ponty [249] d Firstness 10. Peircean semiotics [98] Object Representamen Interpretant Sign 11. neo-Semiotics (this section) Firstness Secondness Thirdness Zeroness (Section 6.6.4) 12. Bohr’s complementarity [47] Wave Particle Quone Reality (?) ITR can be represented diagrammatically as a 4-node network and applied to many philosophical and religious systems and hence can be viewed as one of the “simple concepts applicable to every subject” first articulated by Peirce in 1898 [372] a A Chinese cosmological term for the “Supreme Ultimate” state of undifferentiated absolute and infinite potential, the oneness before duality, from which Yin and Yang originate Reproduced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiji_(philosophy) b A Chinese word signifying “way”, “path”, “route”, “doctrine”, or “principle” indicating the intuitive knowing of “life” that cannot be grasped full-heartedly as just a concept but is known nonetheless through actual living experience of one’s everyday being The Tao differs from conventional (Western) ontology in that it is an active and holistic practice of the natural order of Nature and its universal awakening, rather than a static, atomistic one Reproduced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao c The A, B, and C terms were suggested by Vinod Kumar Sehgal on the [Sadhu Sanga] list on September 20, 2016 and the ABC term is my addition d A cosmological model that was constructed on the basis of the principle of self-organization and complementarism [24, 280] and includes the triad of matter, mind, and spirit e A quantum object exhibiting the wave–particle duality [53] b2861_Ch-06.indd 281 17-10-2017 12:04:15 PM b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter “6x9” 282 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Table 6.11 The dichotomous reading of the 4-node network representing ITR Geometry 4-Node Network ABC Located in B Two-dimensional Visible world ABC A C ABC Three-dimensional A B Invisible world C 6.7 Application of the Concept of Signs to Molecular Biology: Microsemiotics Having defined the 10 classes of c-signs, let us now apply them to the specific case of DNA as an example of a molecular sign The word “DNA” must have three formal elements — representamen, object, and interpretant — and each of these in turn have three values depending on its ontological status: (a) Representamen — DNA as a representamen can be either one of the three possibilities, i.e., qualisign, sinsign, and legisign If we are thinking about general principle of DNA as the carrier of genetic information, it would be a “legisign” On the other hand, if we are considering a specific DNA molecule isolated from, say, Drosophila melanogaster, with a specific set of genes encoded in it, then DNA would be a “sinsign” If, through deep meditation, say, one can feel one’s DNA molecules wiggling around in his/her brain cells either replicating or transcribing genes, DNA to such a person may be a qualisign, or DNA in action in living cells may be another example b2861_Ch-06.indd 282 17-10-2017 12:04:16 PM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Biosemiotics 283 of a qualisign from the point of view of the cell So, DNA can be any one of these three representamens (b) Object — DNA as an object could be any one of the three possibilities — icon, index, or symbol The object of “DNA” would be indexical, if DNA acts as a sinsign (i.e., as the carrier of specific genes); symbolic, if DNA acts as a legisign (i.e., as a material substrate selected by biological evolution as a medium of encoding genetic information); and iconic, if DNA acts as qualisign (i.e., representing the way the cells must “feel” as when they divide to become a mouse, a horse, or a rose) (c) Interpretant — DNA as an interpretant can be any of the three possibilities — rheme, dicent sign, and argument DNA would be interpreted as representing a rheme, if DNA acted as an iconic qualisign (see Class sign in Table 6.7), an iconic sinsign (Class 2), an indexical sinsign (Class 3), an iconic legisign (Class 5), or an indexical legisign (Class 6), or symbolic legisign (Class 8); it would be a decent sign, if DNA acted as indexical sinsign (Class 4), or indexical legisign (Class 7), or a symbolic legisign (Class 9); and it would be an argument if DNA acted as a symbolic legisign (Class 10) Thus, we can conclude that the word “DNA” can act as any one of the 10 classes of signs defined in Table 6.7, depending on the role it plays in a given context of discourse The 10 classes of signs that Peirce “discovered” about 100 years ago based primarily on observations made at the level of human sign processes, which are by and large macroscopic in scale, appears to be applicable to sign processes in and among living cells which are microscopic in scale [22, 23] 6.8 Real vs Virtual Semiosis It is important to realize that semiosis (e.g., cloud formation before rain as perceived by farmers as signs of rain; appearance of bodily symptoms in patients as perceived by physicians) as a physical process long preceded the emergence of semiotics as a systematic study of sign processes carried out by humans In other words, clouds preceded rain and symptoms appeared in diseased human body long before they were recognized as signs by appropriately trained human mind This simple observation b2861_Ch-06.indd 283 17-10-2017 12:04:16 PM b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter “6x9” 284 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion that signs and sign processes can exist without human mind (although they would not yet have been given the labels or names, “signs” or “sign processes”) Deely [294, 295] refers to those signs that exist before human mind recognize them as such as “virtual signs” and their processes as “virtual semiosis” in contrast to “actual signs” and “actual semiosis” that are recognized by human mind This situation may be diagrammatically represented as shown in Figure 6.6 6.9 Division of Sign Processes Based on the Nature and Size of Sign Processors Sign processes, both virtual and actual, as defined in Figure 6.6, can be divided into distinct classes on the basis of the physical agent that carries out sign processing, as shown in Figure 6.7 Also, semiosis can be divided into macro- and microsemiosis based on the physical size of the signs being processed (Figure 6.8) The contents of Figures 6.7 and 6.8 are summarized in Table 6.12 As alluded to earlier, in-depth and systematic investigations into the nature and function of signs, from portraits and weathercocks to words and ideas, were not undertaken until John Poinsot (1589–1644) and C Human Mind Virtual Signs/Virtual Semiosis Actual Signs/Actual Semiosis Figure 6.6 The role of human mind in semiosis Anthroposemiosis (4) Zoösemiosis (5) Biosemiosis (2) Semiosis (1) Phytosemiosis (6) Cytosemiosis (7) also called Molecular Semiosis, Microsemiosis [23]) Physiosemiosis [281, 294, 295] (3) Figure 6.7 Division of semiosis into seven groups or branches, according to the nature (or qualitative properties) of sign processors b2861_Ch-06.indd 284 17-10-2017 12:04:18 PM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Biosemiotics 285 Macrosemiosis (8) Semiosis (1) Microsemiosis (9) Figure 6.8 Division of semiosis into two branches based on the physical (or quantitative) size of sign processors Table 6.12 The division of sign processes based on the nature (quality) and the physical size (quantity) of sign processors Sign Process Sign Processor Size of Sign Processors 1. Semiosis The Universe Macroscopic 2. Physiosemiosis Non-living systems Macroscopic 3. Biosemiosis Living systems Macroscopic or microscopic 4. Anthroposemiosis Homo sapiens Macroscopic 5. Phytosemiosis Plants Macroscopic 6. Zoösemiosis Animals Macroscopic 7. Cytosemiosis Cells Microscopic 8. Macrosemiosis Macroscopic systems Macroscopic 9. Microsemiosis Microscopic systems Microscopic S Peirce (1839–1914) began their systematic investigations in modern times [281, 294, 295] The influence of Peirce’s theoretical works in semiotics is so great that many contemporary semioticians may regard semiotics as synonymous with the theory of signs formulated and developed by Peirce I think such a view is unjustified and short-sighted Since semiosis is a universal process that must have been going on since the beginning of the human history (by one account even from before the Big Bang [7, pp 154–163]) and will continue to so far into the cosmological future, no single individual, including Peirce and Poinsot (1589–1644) [281], can be expected to develop a complete theory of semiosis in their lifetimes To support this conclusion, we can cite the formulation of microsemiotics in 1997 [20–23] Microsemiotics (i.e., the study of sign processes mediated by molecules as carriers of b2861_Ch-06.indd 285 17-10-2017 12:04:18 PM b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter “6x9” 286 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter information) was born as a logical consequence of the development of molecular biology which might be said to have begun in 1953 with Watson and Crick’s discovery of the DNA double helix and subsequent breaking of the genetic code [363] Peirce missed the molecular biological revolution by about four decades, so his semiotics could not address microsemiosis and hence was limited to studying macrosemiosis, particularly anthroposemiosis and physiosemiosis [281, 294, 295] The amount of the posthumous publications of Peirce’s works on signs are enormous and their interpretations are controversial Modern biosemioticians are faced with the challenge of discerning to what extent, if any, the numerous theories, concepts, and conclusions that were formulated by Peirce on the basis of his investigations on macrosemiosis mostly in the 19th century can be applied to the study of microsemiosis opened up by molecular and cell biological revolutions in the 20th and 21st centuries An equally important challenge is for modern semioticians and philosophers to find out, to what extent, if any, the semiotic analysis of living processes, aided by modern molecular and cell biology, can contribute to solving some of the thorny philosophical and metaphysical problems plaguing the field of semiotics The former challenge may be easier to deal with than the latter one, since the principles and regularities underlying microsemiosis may be more readily uncovered due to the relative simplicity of microsemiosic systems (e.g., enzymes, cells, and neural networks) and the availability of the associated objective experimental data as compared to macrosemiosic systems (e.g., psychology) 6.10 Peirce’s Metaphysics as the Basis for Unifying Sciences Peirce sought to erect a new system of philosophy (or what would now be called a “Theory of Everything” (TOE)) based on a simple set of concepts that can accommodate not only the Aristotelian philosophy, but also the new knowledge that had accumulated since the time of Aristotle up to the 20th century [99, 372] He thought that his system of philosophy would apply to all fields of human knowledge, known and yet to be known (see Statement (6.20)), in agreement with the so-called Josephson conjecture, Statement (4.8) [238], at least in part To demonstrate the idea that, underlying all phenomena, there are three and only three categories of being, Peirce provided examples belonging to b2861_Ch-06.indd 286 17-10-2017 12:04:18 PM “6x9” b2861 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter Biosemiotics 287 Table 6.13 The ontological categories of Peirce and their applications to special sciences Special Sciences Firstness Secondness Thirdness Phenomenology Quality Fact Law Psychology Feeling Sensation Action/reaction Perception Thought Belief Physiology Cell excitation Nerve impulse transmission Habit Biology Fortuitous variations Hereditary transmission of traits Elimination of unfavorable traits Source: Reproduced from [95] each of these categories in different fields of knowledge of his day (see Table 6.13) It is highly informative to note the various manifestations of Thirdness in different disciplines The credibility of his concept of categories seems substantiated by his characterization of biological evolution in terms of chance variations, hereditary transmissions, and elimination of the unfit, which seems to be consistent with contemporary theories of evolution Threeness plays a fundamental role in the metaphysics of Peirce as in the Universe in general (see Section 6.6) According to Peirce, metaphysics is the study of the most general traits of reality Reality in turn is the object of the conclusions one cannot help drawing As pointed out by Pierce, “When a mathematical demonstration is clearly apprehended, we are forced to admit the conclusion It is evident; and we cannot think otherwise” [97, pp 47–48] Most of Peirce’s writings on semiotics and metaphysics are based on the trichotomy of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness [98], although he did discuss the concept of Pure Zero without considering it as a separate category [489] In contrast, the neo-semiotics, i.e., the Peircean semiotics that was extended in Section 6.6.4 by introducing Zeroness, is based on four categories, i.e., Zeroness, Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, which may now allow neo-semiotics to encompass not only semiosis in the physical, immanent Universe, but also the non-physical, transcendental Universe of Eastern mysticism, spiritual experiences, and the modern physical and mathematical theories based on Zero [404, 491] b2861_Ch-06.indd 287 17-10-2017 12:04:18 PM b2530 International Strategic Relations and China’s National Security: World at the Crossroads This page intentionally left blank b2530_FM.indd 01-Sep-16 11:03:06 AM ... (IPe) in Relation to the Shannon Information (ISh) 11 11 12 12 15 15 16 18 19 xix b28 61_ FM.indd 19 1 7 -1 0-2 017 11 :35:03 AM b28 61 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter “6x9” xx ... 10 .17 Semiotics and Information Theory 4 41 10 .18 The Model of the Universe 443 10 .18 .1 The Shillongator Model of the Universe 444 10 .18 .2 Semiotics of the Universe 449 b28 61_ FM.indd 29 1 7 -1 0-2 017 11 :35:03... Aspects 11 5 b28 61_ FM.indd 21 1 7 -1 0-2 017 11 :35:03 AM b28 61 The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter “6x9” xxii Contents 3.3.2 Conformon Production, Transfer, and Utilization 11 9